[Iotops] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-iotops-7228bis-03 (Ends 2026-01-08)

[Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]>]

On 2026-01-07, at 23:33, Marco Tiloca <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have recently re-read this document and I think that it is basically ready.
> 
> Please find some comments below.
> 
> Best,
> /Marco
> 
> 
> 
> [Section 1]
> 
> * "Today, diverse sizes of constrained devices with different resources and capabilities are becoming connected."
> 
>   I guess that the intended subject of "are becoming connected" is "devices", but the current phrasing gives the impression that it is "sizes" instead.
> 
>   Also, I guess that "sizes" refers to the clusters/aggregations of such devices.
> 
>   So perhaps the following alternative phrasing?
> 
>   > Today, constrained devices with different resources and capabilities are becoming connected as arranged in aggregations of diverse sizes.

I skipped the “as arranged in” part.

> * "The present document is a revision of [RFC7228]."
> 
>   It is usually expected that a summary of the revised points is provided in the introduction of a document that obsoletes/updates another one.
> 
>   I can see that the summary is given later in Appendix A.
> 
>   At least, the quoted sentence of Section 1 can be extended with a pointer to Appendix A, although it might be preferable for some readers to have that summary handy in Section 1 already, rather than much later in an appendix.

I put in a very dense summary in Section 1 and pointed to Appendix A.

> [Section 2]
> 
> * "... to make this scaling up ..."
> 
>   Which one? The current bullet point talks about a "scaling down". Does "scaling up" here refer to the one mentioned in the previous bullet point?

Yes.  
I added the word “massive” to make this more accessible, but I don’t think the reference to the previous bullet point needs to be explaind even more.

> [Section 2.1]
> 
> * s/may be lacking/may be missing

They may be entirely missing, or they may just be bad, i.e., lacking

> * "security characteristics attainable"
> 
>   Perhaps the following phrasing, instead?
> 
>   > security properties and guarantees attainable

Works for me.

> [Section 5.1]
> 
> * "(note: 'Sx' stands for 'Size x')"
> 
>   Like in Section 5.3 right below Table 12, the quoted text should actually be in a new line, i.e., detached from what is supposed to be a footnote for the rightmost column of Table 10.

Done.  Note that RFCXMLv3 does not really have a postamble any more where text like this could be put, so the result will always be ugly.
I fixed this for Section 5.3 by moving the note into the preceding text.

> [Section 5.2]
> 
> * Considering the term used in the section, the section title can be changed to be "Classes of Internet Technology Level".

Instead, we moved everything to “Class of Internet Integration”, because that is closer to what it really us.

> [Section 5.3]
> 
> * Note that there still is a placeholder TODO note at the beginning of the section.

Fixed.

> [Nits]
> 
> * Section 2.3
> --- s/always is a/is always a

I prefer the sequence as it is (construction with emphasis).

> * Section 2.3.1
> --- s/typically are composed/are typically composed

Done.

> * Section 3
> --- s/an Memory/a Memory
> --- s/controllers, these are/controllers, which is

The devices “are”, not “is”, I think.

Thank you!

Changes in:
https://github.com/lwig-wg/terminology/commit/65cd789

Grüße, Carsten